| 1 |
The TL;DR is that a crack team of infra-folks[0] have been putting together |
| 2 |
demos of CI services and things like gitlab / gitea / gerrit and so on. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Some of these come in combined (e.g. gitlab offers repo hosting, code |
| 5 |
review / pull reqs, CI services, and deploy services.) Some of these are |
| 6 |
piecemeal (e.g. gerrit has code review, zuul has CI) and gitea offers |
| 7 |
repo-hosting but CI is separate (e.g. drone.) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
On the infra-side, I think we are pretty happy with repo-hosting (gitolite) |
| 10 |
and repo-serving (gitweb). We are missing a CI piece and a pull-request |
| 11 |
piece. Most of the users using PRs use either a gitlab or github mirror. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I think the value of CI is pretty obvious to me (and I see tons of use |
| 14 |
cases in Infra.) We could easily build CI into our current repository |
| 15 |
solution (e.g. gitolite.) However gitolite doesn't really support PRs in a |
| 16 |
uniform way and so CI is mostly for submitted code; similar to the existing |
| 17 |
::gentoo repo CI offered by mgorny. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
If we build a code review solution (like gitea / gerrit) would people use |
| 20 |
it? Would you use it if you couldn't merge (because the code review |
| 21 |
solution can't gpg sign your commits or merges) so a tool like the existing |
| 22 |
pram tool would be needed to merge? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-A |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
[0] Mostly arzano, if I'm honest. I am just the point-y haired manager in |
| 27 |
this effort. |
Archives